Mis-selling of goods by private seller

SouthUKMan

Cornwall_Nanny wrote: »

Thank you your comments are very much appreciated.

You are welcome. I think you do have a slim case, however you really do need to weigh up the pros and cons of proceeding with a claim, because the argument that you had an opportunity to inspect the camper before driving it away is actually a very strong and almost overriding argument that clearly works against you. That said, courts generally don't like misrepresentation.

The idea of sending a letter putting the seller on notice is a scare tactic. You have nothing to lose as regardless of whether or not you do proceed with court action, you already know that unless you do something - he's not going to compensate you as things stand at the moment. All I would add is that to both serve as a scare tactic and to be legally correct, you need to write the letter in a very concise and factual way - leave all emotion out of it. There are people on here that will happily draft such a letter or least give strong pointers.

forgotmyname

Or the seller had 2 campers for sale??

You bought one and instead of creating a new listing, they just changed the pictures and text.

Happened when i bought my previous car. Ebay listing with a BIN. I viewed it and test drove it and put a deposit down. Went back several days later he took my car as part exchange and i taxed it and drove home.

The listing had been updated with pictures of the car i traded in.

And more recently several chinese sellers have done it to me. Bought an item and an inferior one turned up. I thought i didnt buy that. Check the listing and yep the cheap one is right.

But checking the history of the listing shows it was updated after my purchase.

You didnt purchase the camper on pictures alone, you had a chance to inspect it and reject it.
You took it away so were obviously happy with the purchase.

Minor faults like what? Not listed in the advert, but did you specifically ask about those points?

As above if you do intend on making a claim it needs to be facts only. The fact you had the option of inspecting it before taking it away. And that the spec didnt quite match will bring up the questions of why did you then accept it?

bris

The case hinges on the photos and whether they were
1. You can prove they sent them in the first place
2. Not just example photos,i.e it look a bit like this.


There is no law that says anything needs to be described so that is a mute point. Buyer needs to do their own due diligence in private sales. it could be a tough one to win as any reasonable person would expect anyone when buying such an expensive item would expect it to be examined, folded or not.

shaun_from_Africa

bris wrote: »

There is no law that says anything needs to be described so that is a mute point. Buyer needs to do their own due diligence in private sales.

Please tell me that you are not being serious.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/Documents/Advice%20factsheets/Consumer%20Affairs/c-private-sales-and-car-boot-sales.pdf

What the law says
When you buy goods from a private individual, for example, by answering an advert in the local paper or at a car boot sale, the law says the goods must:-
match their description. This means they must be as described by the seller. This includes any description on the label. For example, if a seller says a car has a 1800cc engine, it must not have an 1100cc engine.

It is important to check goods before you buy, because generally goods brought from a private seller do not have to be free from faults. However, if the seller tells you the goods are in good working order, and they turn out to be faulty, then you may be able to take action on the grounds that the goods did not match their description (see below).

George_Michael

bris wrote: »

There is no law that says anything needs to be described so that is a mute point

Coming from someone who gives advice on a consumer rights forum, that comment is absolutely astounding.
http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/myservices/business/trading-standards/Documents/TradingStandardsFactSheet06.pdf

Carrot007

bris wrote: »

There is no law that says anything needs to be described so that is a mute point.

No it does not have to be described. But if it is it has to be "As Descirbed".

Also "Moot Point" Google it and refrain from making up phrases in future.

phill99

I am still amazed that someone will make a purchase of an expensive item based solely on random photos.

shaun_from_Africa

phill99 wrote: »

I am still amazed that someone will make a purchase of an expensive item based solely on random photos.

But the OP didn't buy solely based on "random photos".
In the opening post, they stated that they were buying "based on the photos & description in the advertisement & the additional photos we had requested via personal email"

phill99

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

But the OP didn't buy solely based on "random photos".
In the opening post, they stated that they were buying "based on the photos & description in the advertisement & the additional photos we had requested via personal email"

Of course they are random photos.


How do you know they're of the item in question? This is the problem the OP is having. I just think its ridiculous buying something based on a few photos (that you hope are of the item in question) and a sellers description. Its just stupid.

pinkshoes

phill99 wrote: »

Of course they are random photos.


How do you know they're of the item in question? This is the problem the OP is having. I just think its ridiculous buying something based on a few photos (that you hope are of the item in question) and a sellers description. Its just stupid.

I wouldn't call eBay stupid, and that is a whole business built on items being sold by a photo and description...

It is a more than reasonable assumption that the photos are of the item being sold.

If I have EVER used a stock photo, I have made it clear in the description that a stock photo is used, and then always includes my own photos.